+1 On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:17 AM, David Davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> I went back and looked at PUP-3 and it does lay out some of the items > @pcreech mentions although at a higher, more general level. I’ll leave the > document as is unless someone disagrees. > > With that in mind, let's go ahead and vote on PUP-3. We’ll end the voting > on October 8th which is about 10 days away. > > To refresh everyone’s memory, voting is outlined in PUP-1: > > https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0001.md#voting > > And here’s the PUP in question: > > https://github.com/daviddavis/pups/blob/pup3/pup-0003.md > > Please respond to this thread with your vote or any comments/questions. > > > David > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thanks @pcreech for all the comments. I also believe that switching to a >> cherry-picking model will provide many benefits. >> >> As a general FYI, the way PUP-3 is written, it allows us to adopt it >> (assuming it passes at vote) and then figure out how to roll it out later >> in coordination w/ release engineering. >> >> @daviddavis, should we start casting votes or should we wait for you to >> declare it open after maybe pushing an update? >> >> Thanks! >> Brian >> >> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 1:38 PM, David Davis <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Patrick, >>> >>> Thanks for the feedback. I’d like to update PUP-3 in the next couple >>> days with the pain points you mention. >>> >>> Also, I’d love the idea of having some tooling that tells us exactly >>> which commits to cherry pick into which release branch. I think we should >>> have this in place before we switch to cherry-picking if we decide to go >>> that route. >>> >>> >>> David >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Patrick Creech <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Since I was one of the early voices against cherrypicking during the >>>> initial vote, I figured I'd send this e-mail along with some points that >>>> have helped me be in favor of cherry picking before voting >>>> starts. >>>> >>>> In taking over the release engineering process, I have gained some >>>> perspective on our current situation and have found Cherrypicking to be an >>>> enticing concept for pulp. Most notably, these are the >>>> things I ran into during the release process for 2.13.4 that caused >>>> some headaches and frustrations. >>>> >>>> Firstly, we had an issue come up with the Pulp Docker 2 line that does >>>> not exist with the new Pulp Docker 3 line. Dockerhub V2 Schema2 has some >>>> manifest issues that cause syncs in the Pulp Docker 2 >>>> line to fail. A change specific to this issue was created and merged >>>> to the 2.4-dev branch. It's only application is the 2 line, but to satisfy >>>> our current tooling and policy, this change had to be >>>> merged forward through 3.0-dev and to Master, where it no longer >>>> applies and the code no longer exists in this form. I took great care to >>>> verify that no code changes happened on 3.0-dev and master, >>>> but there is the window open for issues here. >>>> >>>> Another issue that happened is when issues that are merged from a -dev >>>> branch aren't merged forward. In this case, two issues that landed on the >>>> most recent -dev branch weren't merged forward along >>>> to master before a helper script was ran. When this helper script ran, >>>> it was ran with the merge strategy of "ours" to ensure it's changes don't >>>> persist forward. When "ours" is used, conflicting >>>> changes are automatically dropped from the source branch to the >>>> destination branch. This caused the code for these two changes to >>>> dissapear on the master branch, while their commit hashes were there >>>> in the history. I had to cherry-pick these changes forward to master >>>> from the branch they landed on to ensure the modified code exists. >>>> >>>> And lastly, since 2.13.4 was a 2.13.z release that was done after >>>> 2.14.0 went out, changes had to be cherry-picked back from 2.14-dev to >>>> 2.13-dev. Since the hash changed, these changes yet again had >>>> to be merged forward to 2.14-dev and then Master, even though they >>>> already existed in these branches, thus helping to pollute the repo history >>>> further with more duplication. >>>> >>>> While a large portion of these issues can be attributed to the merge >>>> forward everything policy, I have been in talks with other teams that >>>> follow a cherrypicking strategy about their workflow since >>>> I'm in the process of revamping pulp's release engineering process. >>>> Something that caught my attention as beneficial is a team's strategy that >>>> everything goes on master, and with some automated >>>> tooling and bookeeping in their issue tracker they can identify what >>>> cherrypicks need to be pulled back to the release branch and spit out a >>>> command for the release engineer to run to do the >>>> cherrypicks. The release engineer resolves any conflicts, and then >>>> puts up a PR to merge into the release branch so the work goes through the >>>> normal testing + review process. >>>> >>>> >>>> In short, at this point I have come to believe that switching to a >>>> cherry-pick model will allow us greater flexibility and accuracy in >>>> ensuring our releases contain what we want them to contain, and >>>> don't contain what we don't want. With tooling, it should also help >>>> simplify ensuring the right things get put in the right places. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
